Hey everybody, welcome back to the channel. We are back on another episode of the daily recap. Happy to be back.

Over the past two weeks, we have earning season.

And realistically, I think every quarter, we're likely not going to be able to do a daily recap during earning season because we're doing the stream until like 8:00 p.m. every day.

I think at 1.2 weeks ago, we have like a nine hour stream.

So, usually when we get into earning season, which is four times a year, you should expect probably a one to two week delay on the daily recaps.

Um, but earning season is pretty much done.

We have some more earnings throughout the next couple weeks that we'll talk about. Had Rocket Lab, ASS, Core Weave today, bunch of those companies.

Nvidia is the next big catalyst on November 19th.

So, pretty much after you get done with big tech and then we had Palin and Robinet last week that were also really important. Um, you are done for earning season.

And so, we're going to see what happens with Nvidia. But, we are back. Got a lot to talk about.

A lot has happened over the past two weeks. I want to catch everybody up to speed.

First of all, government shutdown. We got to talk about it.

Looks like it's over. And it seems like that's why the market might be up today.

S&P was up 1.5%. Really good day for the S&P, only 1% away from all-time highs.

Nvidia had its best day since April, which you might not think about Given Nvidia was at 212, then it came all the way down to 160 or 178 last week, now back up to 199 today.

You might not have thought it was the best days in April, but it was the best day since April of 5.8% for Nvidia.

So, we'll talk about the shutdown.

We will talk about this AI bearish bet that Michael Bur has taken and kind of my thoughts and what's going on in regards to how Bur is thinking of the broader bearish trade around capex, data centers, AI in general.

Talk about that.

Um, and then well, we got to talk about Trump stimulus because maybe, just maybe, we might be getting some stem checks.

Let's get into it.

Okay, so let's get started with uh the shutdown news.

Basically, what has been happening over the past 40 days that the Democrats and Republicans in the United States of America, which comprise the two major political parties in the House and the Senate, uh which comprise Congress, they could not come to an agreement on what to do in regards to funding the government.

The number one reason for why they could not come to an agreement was if they wanted to extend ACA subsidies, this is the Affordable Care Act, which was passed underneath the Obama administration, to illegal immigrants.

The Republicans are saying, "We don't want to fund illegal immigrants healthcare."

The Democrats are saying this is an essential right that people have and you can't take it away.

And that got the government shut down for the past 40 days.

Yesterday, the Senate, which needs 60 votes to pass something, uh got eight Democrats to agree with 52 Republicans to end the shutdown and not necessarily fund the government for the next year, but fund the government until January 30th.

So it's very important for people to understand that we might be back on this essentially game that the Democrats and Republicans are playing with the entire United States.

You know the entire country you a lot of people that have been furled a lot of people that have not been able to have pay for the past couple weeks.

This game is going to continue in January if there is not a resolution around the health care portion which potentially is going to get a vote in December.

That's why you had stocks like Oscar to get a big dip today.

Oscar's entire business model is rooted in these healthcare ACA subsidies.

not the only thing that matters, but it's definitely a big part of their business that's down 15% in the day because we don't have any clarity on this.

And so last night, the Senate passed the first stage of a deal that would end the US government shutdown, which began again on October 1st.

Likely tomorrow or Wednesday, we're going to get an overall vote uh in the House now that the procedural vote has passed the Senate by getting those eight Democratic um senators to vote on it.

And that will put in place the ability for us to end the shutdown.

I think the most important thing to understand about this shutdown is that last Friday we had a really ugly day in the stock market.

I mean the S&P 500 was down about 1.2%.

At one point at 1 pm things just got very ugly.

I would imagine a lot of people's portfolios were taking a pretty ugly hit.

Then by 2:00 things started reversing and I was actually doing a podcast at the time and I looked over to my phone and I was like, "Wow, we are potentially about to go green."

And one of the reasons we were about to go green is because there was a headline that Democrats are ready to negotiate with Republicans on ending the shutdown.

And it's almost like you have all these different arguments for why the market was down last week.

Last week was a very emotional choppy week.

You could point to the labor market, worst layoffs that we had since 2003.

You could point to the lack of governmental data because the government was shut down.

You could point to hiccups in the AI capex trade with all this debt that's being issued to finance data centers that we'll talk about in a second.

apparently based on the price action on Friday which ended green in the after hours was really green on Friday and then today up one and a half% Nvidia having the best day since April it's almost like the entire market the algos everything that's in there cared about the shutdown.

And now that the shutdown is over it's almost like we potentially have uh the the the ability to make the next leg up given that we took such a steep haircut last week.

I mean we're almost pushing below 660 and now we're back at 681.

Obviously, dip buyers have been very resilient in this market and things have worked out.

It's just astonishing to me to see that the shutdown, which no one cared about. The market definitely didn't care about it for the past 30 days, decided on Friday and really cared about it.

And as of the price action today, you're seeing that now that the shutdown is basically over, markets are ready to go back higher again hopefully as earnings growth continues.

So, we had a good big tech earnings.

We had really good results from Pound Robin Hood. Talked about that on Twitter, put out some videos about it.

We put out our raw thoughts on Pounders's earnings after it came out.

And so obviously, you know, those results were phenomenal.

We got Nvidia left.

Seems like we need to end the shutdown.

Now that the shutdown's over, maybe that helps the S&P 500 get back to alltime highs.

All right, let's talk about Bur.

Now, the other big thing in terms of the piece of news that we had last week that I didn't get a chance to talk about on the daily recap is that Michael Bur is officially having a put position against Nvidia and Palanteer.

There's a lot of nuance to this and I want to kind of break it down, but there is a billion dollar notional bet that Michael Bur has.

That doesn't mean he paid a billion dollars, but that means the notional value of his puts are a billion dollars.

And same thing for well, Nvidia is about 187 million.

That is a bearish bet against Palervidia.

Are they just puts? We don't exactly know.

quite frankly based on some of his cryptic tweets which he tends to be a prolific uh poster that is more mysterious than not and and tends to be a bit more cryptic. Reminds me of the movie Catch Me If You Can and kind of the way that he gives out hints.

Classic movie by the way, Leo DiCaprio. Amazing movie.

Um it's almost like he might be out of the position right there.

I read some reports today that he's completely out of the position and technically you don't get to know about that for the next 45 days until the next 13 Fs and 13Gs are disclosed.

By the way, we're going to get a lot of institutional ownership disclosed this week.

So definitely will be keeping people up to date on different changes in these super investor portfolios.

But at its core, no one fully knows if he is short, net short, puts or completely out of the position.

What we do know is that these puts were initiated or had to be initiated based on the date of filing by the end of September 30th, 2025.

The lowest price Palanter got to in that quarter was 142.

I really doubt that he started shorting. Well, I'll just say shorting for lack of a better word. it might not be actually shorting shorting pounder 142.

Uh and if he did, he's really underwater.

I doubt he got the 190s, which were sort of the highs of that quarter. We barely touched it for a second.

Then we got more to the 190s in October. That's when we actually started to get into the 200s.

Um I doubt he got the top. I doubt I also doubt he got the bottom.

So at some level, I think realistically he probably started shorting Palunteer around 175 to 185.

Well, given the rebound that Palanteer had today, even after this disclosure came out, Palanteer is trading at $194.18 right now.

I mean, there's an argument that he is underwater on these puts.

There's also an argument that he already got out of the position last week.

Alex Karp, the CEO of the company, made some headlines last week by basically saying he thinks it's market manipulation.

And essentially Michael Bur and this you know this is hard to sort of argue with. He discloses 13F for the first time in a decade which is the SEC form that's required to share what positions you have if you are managing capital um two weeks early.

He never does that.

He hasn't done that for the past decade.

He did that this time.

Why did he do that?

Maybe he wanted to bring some attention to create some manipulation so he could get the hell out of his position because he saw those earnings results and 63% revenue growth and 51% adjusted operating margins probably is not something you want to mess around with in terms of being short or have a net put position.

So I don't fully know what Michael Bur is doing.

Same thing with Nvidia.

I don't think it makes a lot of sense shorting or having puts on pounder Nvidia.

These are the most important companies in the market.

Quite frankly you're basically betting against AI if you're betting against what Karp would call chips and ontology.

And not just on a on a philosophical basis, but like Nvidia is 8% of the S&P 500.

If you bet against Nvidia, you are betting that the S&P 500 is coming down.

Pounder is not 8% of the S&P 500, but Pounder is a massive name in regards to the AI trade.

And if Pounder were to go down, you would see probably a lot of other companies fall within.

It is my belief that Pounder and Nvidia are not going to independently fall while the market stays up.

I really doubt given the level of momentum and excitement that is in pound and video that these two stocks were to go down, you know, if they were to go down 20 to 30% that the market would still be able to hold up.

Like I just don't see that happening.

There are other stocks that can go to zero. The market's not going to care.

I don't think pounder and video are those names.

So essentially what I read from those put positions, if he even has them anymore, is that he's bearish on the broader idea of AI.

And then you get this tweet from Bur today which you know continues to add fuel to the fire in terms of how he's conceptualizing this idea of being bearish AI.

He says understanding depreciation by extending useful life of assets artificially boosts earnings one of the more common frauds of the modern era.

Massively ramping capex through purchase of Nvidia chip servers on a two to threeear product cycle should not result in the extension of useful lives of compute equipment. Yet this is exactly what all the hyperscalers have done.

By my estimates, they will underestimate or understate depreciation by 176 billion in 2026 to 2028. By 2028, Oracle will overstate earnings by 27%, meta by 21%.

But it gets worse. More details coming on November 25th. Stay tuned.

And he attaches a chart and that chart is essentially showing the network compute depreciation useful life going into the next four years.

Essentially what Bur is stating is that the these companies are underestimating the level of depreciation on these Nvidia chips and that allows them to overestimate the earnings that they have because once you take into account all the depreciation of those chips which is a function of all this capex that these companies are spending the same capex that is keeping Nvidia at a $5 trillion valuation then that in the words of or in the eyes of Bur meaningfully deacelerates earnings and and quite frankly overstates what investors are seeing.

is the perception of earnings.

Essentially, he's saying Oracle, Meta, all the hyperscalers are frauding investors by using an accounting trick.

I mean, that's objectively what I'm getting from the post and uh you know, he posted it this morning during the market open.

Now, when I saw the post, there's two pieces of analysis here.

Number one is that Michael Bur has not specifically talked about tickers in the past two years.

Um, he's very, again, cryptic with the way he posts. He doesn't really post a lot of content.

So when he posts Nvidia, Microsoft, Oracle, Meta, like when he's actually posting these tickers, it gets my attention because I'm like, "Wow, he really wants attention."

Michael Bur is someone who can get a lot of attention given that he was correct about the 2008 housing crisis and called the short uh correctly and, you know, made a lot of money off that.

So, a lot of people still listen when he says something.

He hasn't really used that influence in the past couple years in the nature of this bull market.

The last thing that he said in 2023 was that you should sell in January.

So, now he's trying to get some influence.

So just from a perceptual perspective, it was very interesting to see that he actually cares about people knowing his thoughts and opinions, aka he wants attention.

The sub piece to that sort of macro layer of analysis is that he might be getting desperate.

He might be having a massive short put position that we don't even know about, not even just on Nvidia and Palanteer, and he wants more people to know about it so that more people can hop in the trade with him.

And he's obviously trying to use his influence to get people to um go more in a bearish bet.

So that's the first piece of analysis.

The second piece of analysis is this whole more to come November 25th.

Is he releasing an album, a book?

Like as soon as I saw that in the morning, I was like, "What? We're coming out with more information on November 25th."

I don't know if there's an earnings report that comes out on that day.

We do have Dell earnings.

Maybe he's tying something to Dell.

I don't know if he's putting out some big article that's going to expose it.

I have no idea.

in his bio, by the way. Um, uh, the new bio is, um, reactivated here after two and a half years. Something special coming November 25th.

I hope it's a book, bro, because if it's just a book launch, it's like, okay, cool. You're just generating hype for your book.

But if he's trying to go super deep into this whole AI is fake thing.

I mean, we're going to see what ends up happening.

But, uh, November 25th, we'll get more details.

So, what is my takeaway on this?

I have not done enough research on the overall capex trade.

I mean, I've done a decent amount of research, but not enough accounting research to be able to effectively say Michael Bur is wrong about the the way he's under the way he's analyzing depreciation and if that could be overestimating earnings.

I will say even though I have not done all that accounting research, I've done a lot more sort of fundamental research on the nature of like the ROI these companies are getting, the growth rates, how these companies are ultimately thinking of the future trajectory of what their products and services look like.

These are public companies that are audited by public accounting firms that have to report to the SEC.

So if Microsoft, uh, Meta, Google, Amazon, if all these companies are massively underestimating or under, uh, reporting depreciation and overestimating earnings, I mean, like maybe that's possible, but at its core, I think that's pretty aggressive.

And if that were to happen, I don't know if they could legally get away with that.

like like it seems like Bur is really grasping for straws here because he's trying to make the argument that like it's all fake.

All this capex is stupid.

None of it's real.

There's no ROI.

The data centers are all bubble.

He's tweeted some other pictures about how there's all this circular financing going on.

And like those are legitimate concerns.

I wouldn't say that we shouldn't be skeptical of that stuff.

But at its core, he's making the argument that Meta doesn't deserve to be trading.

You know, when people say that big tech is cheap, which I've big tech is cheap, which I've been a a fan of saying in terms of just looking at their multiples, and it's hard to say meta at 19 times earnings is not cheap.

Bur saying essentially they're not trading at 19 times.

They're trading at a way more aggressive rate because their earnings are much lower than expected, or at least that Meta is actually showing off.

Same thing with Microsoft and Google.

So, I don't know if he's correct or not.

My gut tells me he's not correct.

And I think there's a lot more nuance to this.

But then again, the reason Bur called the housing crisis was because he was willing to be wrong for a long amount of time until the thesis played out.

Now, granted, since then, he is, I think, in my opinion, psychoanalytically, this is my analysis of him, he's been looking for that high.

He's been looking for that dopamine.

He's been looking to be seen as the guy who called the bubble all over again.

It hasn't worked out for the past 15 years.

And so I think the guy really wants to be the guy this time in the age of AI which is why he's bearish Palenter Nvidia and you know using these arguments around capex and valuation.

I'm not saying these arguments don't have merit.

I do think they're worth looking at which I will take a deep look at.

I just don't know if he's going to be accurate on this and I don't know if you want to bet against what's going on in AI.

Quick example right here.

There's a company by Andre and Horwitz that just got funded $2.1 billion valuation.

The company is called Gamma.

Essentially think of them as AI PowerPoint.

That's the easiest way to describe them.

PowerPoint redefined in the world of AI a hundred million dollars in annual recurring revenue.

They just raised that $2.1 billion in terms of their valuation.

So, you know, they're training at 20 times sales.

That's not absolutely egregious.

I mean, that's for a startup that's growing as fast as they are. Pretty good.

Um, and then they have 50 people on their team.

So, each person is worth $2 million to the company.

So like that type of growth, that type of um hockey stick level of ARR and then you look at the valuation.

This is not like some $85 billion company.

2021 we had some stupid NFT and web 3 companies that were worth like hundred billion dollar.

This is a $2 billion company.

One of the fastest companies to get to hundred million in ARR and because of AI, they only have 50 people.

So the level of efficiency and margins that they have is astronomical.

I mean, when you see stuff like this and the only reason that's happening is because of all this data center spend, all this capex spend, all the new models and how they're continuing to get better and better and better.

If we get 20 to 30 more of those companies that will become the Googles and Microsofts of one day, hopefully going into the future.

I mean, that is what your ROI is going to be looking at.

Not to mention, you know, the potential ROI that a Gemini, a chat, and anthropic are going to be able to create one day.

So I think the level of growth we're seeing, the level of spend we're seeing and the level of transformational impact we're seeing.

And we're going to see a lot more of that in the world of FSD, robotics, AI, personal assistance, etc. that is something you don't fade.

But Michael Murray seems to fundamentally disagree.

And so time will tell, but that is how he's thinking about this AI trade.

All right, last thing we got to talk about stimulus.

Trump had a lot of tweets over the weekend and uh some war tweets this morning.

I don't know exactly how to make sense of it, but nonetheless, here's what he said.

Uh, lower and middle inome USA citizens will receive a $2,000 tariff dividend.

That was last night, this morning. All money left over from the $2,000 payments made to low and middle inome USA citizens from the massive tariff income pouring into our country from foreign countries will be substantial and will be used to substantially pay down the debt. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

So, you got a lot of people saying, "Wait a second. Is Donnie T doing stimulus checks again?"

Because if we're doing STEMI checks again, we got to be going higher, right?

We saw what happened in 2020.

We got to be going higher if we're doing STEMI checks.

Couple points of analysis right here.

Basent kind of clarified these comments and said that the $2,000 dividend might be already baked into the big beautiful bill with no tax on tips, no tax on overtimes, all these other different incentives that the Trump administration is giving to lower and middle income people in the United States.

and as a result that quote unquote 2000 dividend might not actually be a full-on stimulus check.

So that's the first piece of analysis.

Trump then doubled down on the statement today by putting out that 2,000 dividend tweets which got a lot of people to think okay so if you give it to 200 million people exclude 100 million for the income stuff um which would be like 75,000 for uh single people and 150,000 for couples. You're printing about $400 billion.

If you're printing about $400 billion well we're only bringing in about 300 billion from the tariffs.

So like how does any of this even if you give okay so let's give all the money away from the tariffs 300 billion that means we have 100 billion left that means we have to print it.

what does that mean for inflation?

what does that mean for asset prices?

what happens to the economy when everyone gets a $2,000 check and they buy a new laptop?

how does that inflate earnings?

I mean there's so much stuff to kind of think about from a macro perspective.

I don't actually believe we're going to be printing $2,000 stimulus checks.

I don't even think Trump has the authority to do that.

I think you need Congress to agree and I don't think there's any chance in hell Congress is going to agree to be able to give a $2,000 stimulus check to people given we saw the types of inflation that happened last time when we enacted that.

Um, but it's a new topic that Trump's been talking about.

And I think the number one reason he's been talking about it is because there's been a lot more questions ever since the Mandani election in New York City around affordability.

And I'm very curious to see what people think in the comments on like do you think this country at least if you're in the United States is affordable?

And if you're not watching from the United States, I I'm still curious to hear what you think because across the entire world, it seems like this conversation around affordability is getting more momentum.

Now, from my understanding covering the 2024 election, affordability was not the main concern.

Honestly, the main concern, if you gun to my head, what was the number one thing that I thought the 2024 election consisted of? Immigration.

I thought that was the biggest thing that people cared about.

And now with this Mumani election and you got Democrats winning other states in the country, it's almost like the concept of affordability and maybe that's because prices are up, certain things are down yearto date like egg prices.

Other things are up like general grocery prices and every time you know Trump is asked about this, he doesn't really have the best answer for it.

And quite frankly, he might not be able to give the best answer because the administration did not really focus fully on affordability.

They focused on tariff revenue and they focused on getting these trade deals with all these other countries which by the way one can make an argument was very important like being able to get the EU to give us $750 billion for gas and getting getting Japan and South Korea to commit to $500 billion of investments.

Like all that money coming into the ecosystem, getting the Saudis to buy trillions of dollars worth of chips, that stuff really matters.

And I think the way that Trump is kind of framing the narrative right now is that the tariffs are so important from a national security perspective, which by the way I agree with.

I mean like we got to be able to build our own chips in the United States.

Jensen agrees with this as well.

We got to be able to build our own pharmaceutical stuff.

So like one could argue if we were to get into a world war tomorrow and we can't build our own chips, have our own pharma, have our own supply chain, that stuff really does matter.

However, the trade-off potentially might be affordability or at least the lack of care of affordability and also the potential of inflation rising because of the tariffs which makes things even more unaffordable.

Not to mention in the world of AI we're having all these layoffs in terms of cracks in the labor market, the lack of employment opportunities because there's not that much of a chance to find a job or at least anecdotally that's what I've been hearing and I'm curious what people are hearing as well that you know jobs are not the easiest to find right now.

And then AI being a catalyst for more layoffs.

Now you've got a real unaffordability crisis coming on because people, you know, don't have jobs.

And if they don't have jobs, they don't have the money to be able to spend on goods and services, which ultimately could affect the economy.

So who has benefited over the past nine months?

Asset holders.

People like you and I that are watching this video right now.

If you've bought stocks, you've done very well.

Nvidia's done very well.

But the bifurcation of this economy of Nvidia shareholders doing well and then you know someone who's working a nineto-5 that just got laid off even if they're not even a blueco collar worker because of AI exactly what Nvidia is working on that creates a lot of difficult conversations to be able to have as a president.

And so I think what's going on with Trump right now not to mention here's the final nail in the coffin the Supreme Court from what I've been reading might strike down this Trump tariff case.

I don't know if it's going to happen but from what I've been reading Supreme Court's not feeling that friendly against the constitutionality of the tariffs if they were to strike down the tariff case uh and have to force Trump to reverse everything, which I don't even want to imagine what that would look like.

And you've got this broader argument around affordability not necessarily being the center of the Trump campaign.

They're more concerned about tariffs and investments and revenue.

And the American people feel that affordability is not being discussed enough.

And it, you know, if things are generally becoming more unaffordable, you got Trump talking about 50-year mortgages over the weekend, potentially 15-year car loans.

Obviously, it's not even political to say this.

Objectively, Trump is trying to figure out how to make things more affordable, and he's responding to the chatter in the mainstream around a lack of affordability.

Obviously, interest rates have not come down as aggressively.

And so, you've got Trump that's trying to figure out how can we frame the narrative in a way that is more helpful for the average American citizen that can't afford a car, a house, groceries, etc.

I don't know what that results in.

I don't know if that hurts Wall Street in 2026 because so far that hasn't really hurt Wall Street.

But I think it's something we all got to care about and we all have to pay attention to in regards to labor market because if that does begin to crack in a meaningful way, which theoretically could create a lot of deflation, you have AI creating deflation, which means maybe if you did print $400 billion, it wouldn't be that inflationary, although my gut tells me it's probably going to be more inflationary than not.

If that does end up hurting the broader economy, that's obviously going to affect Wall Street and that's obviously going to affect asset prices.

So, it's something that we have to keep an eye on.

I'm trying to do as much due diligence as I can to really understand what's going on in the labor market.

Chipotle, Lululemon, all these stocks that have got hit this year because they are consumer oriented brands that are seeing a decline in the strength of the consumer.

But then you have Uber and a firm say that the consumer is fine.

I mean, there's a lot of mixed data.

I'm trying to put it together, but at its core, it's something that we can't forget about.

And it definitely is probably influencing the whole idea of a $2,000 tariff dividend or at least Trump trying to make the argument that, you know, this administration is focused on affordability and trying to help the every the everyday average American to be able to continue to afford things in society.

All right, that's it for me.

Thank everybody for listening and watching.

Appreciate everyone being part of the show.

Daily recaps are back Monday through Thursday.

We'll be here every single day around 8:30 p.m. Eastern.

And I'll see you guys on the next one.

Thank everybody.